Skeleton Argument: Daniel v Jonathan - Contract Law Appeal

Desklib provides past papers and solved assignments for students. This report analyzes a contract law appeal.

Skeleton Argument
1

IN THE COURT OF APEEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
Daniel Appeallant
-and-
Jonathan Respondent
Skeleton Argument filed on behalf of Appellant
GROUND 1
1. The offer made by the Respondent was valid as the terms were clear, certain or
definite.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) 2 QB 256
2. The respondent also had an intention to be bound by the terms of contract. When
the offer was accepted by the appellant through e-mail, then a valid contract was
formed.
Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) 1 WLR 1403
Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1 WLR 349
GROUND 2
1. The postal rule applies to the cases where acceptance is made by post. E-mails
are also covered by the postal rule as the acceptance is given by clicking the
sending button which is not as different as post in which acceptance is given by
posting the letter.
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
Dunlop v Vincent Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381
2. The communication of acceptance is deemed to have been made as and when
the letter containing the acceptance is posted and so the acceptance is
communicated as and when the Appeallant pressed send.
Henthorn v Fraser (1892) 2 Ch 27
The Appellant submit that the appeal be granted.
Leading Counsel Junior Counsel
1.
2

IN THE COURT OF APEEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
Daniel Appeallant
-and-
Jonathan Respondent
Skeleton Argument filed on behalf of Respondent
GROUND 1
1. The Respondent told Appealant that he had no intention of selling the bike and
such lack of intention constituted the contract invalid.
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1975] UKHL 4
GROUND 2
1. The e-mail must not be governed according to the postal rule. The electric
communication is deemed to be virtual and instantaneous and the postal rule
applies to the communication which cannot be made instantly.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155
2. The acceptance must not deemed to have been made unless communicated.
This implies that the e-mail sent must be opened and received by the
Respondent.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3
The Respondent submits that the appeal be dismissed.
Leading Counsel Junior Counsel
3

References
 Bayern, S., 2015. Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles
Concept. California Law Review, 103, p.67.
 Carter, J.W. and Courtney, W., 2017. Unexpressed Intention and Contract
Construction. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37(2), pp.326-356.
 McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University
Press (UK).
 Mik, E., 2016. Contracts governing the use of websites. Singapore Journal of
Legal Studies., p.70.
 Waddams, S., 2017. Contract Law and the Challenges of Computer
Technology. The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology, p.317.
4